no one should have a billion dollars. no, not him either.

[alchemist iq]

luxury high rises eventually become middle class housing once da price drops enough... plenty of those scenarios already played out with big towers. throughout da cities.

Might be a good move for you, if you stop playing around.

 

[layziegunts]

Saw that coming

You never come off as black nor intelligent.
Change your username going forward

 

[Brownstone]

You never come off as black nor intelligent.
Change your username going forward

You and your jokes are lazy, so you can keep yours.

 

[Present]

hello, property taxes? and everytime property exchanges hands in NYC gets a cut everytime..and those certainly "trickle down"

most of those properties are foreign buyers purchasing them anonymously thru LLCs.

So that's how "tax cuts pay for themselves"? I always wondered how that works...

 

[Girl Thats Jules]

i could sit here and tell you i lived it too. i was poor growing up but i was able to find a way to get out of poverty and that i learned along the way, and through my education, that there isn't a level playing field. that it's not just about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. there are many variables that keep you where you are at or help you get to where you are. some are not even quantifiable. if you legit believe that the poor are there because they're lazy then yes, i can point you to a few books (if i can find them at home) that would help educate you on the subject a little more. are there lazy poor people? yes, absolutely. however, a lot of them are there through no fault of their own. everyone has a unique story but the majority of people who are poor are not lazy.

Where did I say that they were poor because they were lazy? COULD YOU SHOW ME?
Lol the majority of retorts to my comments put words in my mouth that I didn't say. Most of the people that act condescending or intellectual on Niketalk can barely understand English. I speak in very simple terms so as not to confuse anyone, yet some still get confused.

When I said, " I got up off my *** and did something..." I didn't say anyone was lazy.

EXAMPLE: If there was someone holding you and some others hostage and you, "got up off your *** and did something." Does that imply that the other hostages were lazy? "Get up off your *** does not necessarily mean "stop being lazy" it can mean: take action, seize the initiative, do something about it, etc.



Now, I can tell you why I think poor people are poor. Lack of education, lack of ambition, and laziness. When I say education, I don't mean college degrees, I mean they're terrible with their finances. (Having too many children also belongs here in the finance section) I don't blame the education system for this either..

I apologize if I sound condescending but it's kind of hard not to when everyone you're debating does.

 

[team91kix]

Where did I say that they were poor because they were lazy? COULD YOU SHOW ME?
Lol the majority of retorts to my comments put words in my mouth that I didn't say. Most of the people that act condescending or intellectual on Niketalk can barely understand English. I speak in very simple terms so as not to confuse anyone, yet some still get confused.

When I said, " I got up off my *** and did something..." I didn't say anyone was lazy.

EXAMPLE: If there was someone holding you and some others hostage and you, "got up off your *** and did something." Does that imply that the other hostages were lazy? "Get up off your *** does not necessarily mean "stop being lazy" it can mean: take action, seize the initiative, do something about it, etc.



Now, I can tell you why I think poor people are poor. Lack of education, lack of ambition, and laziness. When I say education, I don't mean college degrees, I mean they're terrible with their finances. (Having too many children also belongs here in the finance section) I don't blame the education system for this either..

I apologize if I sound condescending but it's kind of hard not to when everyone you're debating does.

you implied they were lazy by saying you got off your bottom and did something about it suggesting if they got off their bottoms they wouldn't be there.

imo the problem with you (from what ive read from you on this subject) is you are resistant to wanting to be educated on this subject. you have this inability to want to hear what people have to say and challenge yourself to think about what theyre actually saying.

your entire post has this narcissistic vibe to it, too. on that note enjoy the rest of your day.

 

[marikomorose]

this has to be one of the most uneducated comments I've ever read on NT

sounded like an extreme case of white privilege.

 

[team91kix]

sounded like an extreme case of white privilege.

NT never ceases to amaze me lol

 

[Raji Lowenthal]

luxury high rises eventually become middle class housing once da price drops enough... plenty of those scenarios already played out with big towers. throughout da cities.

Name 2, I'm curious.

 

[ninjahood]

So that's how "tax cuts pay for themselves"? I always wondered how that works...

u are aware that if you punitively tax those high rise property transactions folks will just park their money in Florida where they're experiencing super growth.

 

[heelsandeers]

concentration of wealth at the very, very top is a function of a rapidly expanding market that can be accessed at very low marginal cost

why are Zuckerberg and Bezos so rich? Because they were able to build corporate empires at low cost (esp. Zuckerberg). They could retain a very large equity stake in their businesses because the businesses did not require much equity capital to grow

compare their companies to other large industrial companies. It took J&J over a century to grow to the size it is today. It had to invest huge amounts of capital into its various operations. The original fortune has been split among children and grand children. Though the Johnsons are very rich, they aren't Bezos or Zuckerberg rich

hedge funds produce massive concentrations of wealth for similar reasons. It costs about the same to manage $10B in assets and $100B in assets. Industries with network effects produce winner-take-all reward structures that again tend to concentrate wealth at the very top. It's impossible to make the case that this is a good thing for society

I don’t think the majority of super rich Americans object to a more redistributionist fiscal policy. But he top 0.1% are SO rich that it only takes a few to exert tremendous influence over Government. I'd bet there are more super rich who think like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates than like the Kochs (although that idea sort of clashes with the progressive narrative)

 

[ninjahood]

Name 2, I'm curious.

sure.

Tracey Towers - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The buildings were created as a result of the Mitchell-Lama program, in addition, neighboring purchased air rights were also utilized in order to allow construction. Intended to be a luxury condominium,[4] the buildings were completed in 1972 and opened in 1974 as subsidized housing.

In 1960, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey transferred to the city the air rights of a three-acre area near the bridge. The city auctioned off those rights to the Kratter Corporation for a little over $1 million, as part of a novel method to build more middle-income housing.
Construction began in 1961 on what was one of the world's first aluminum-sheathed high-rises, with four concrete platforms providing the foundation. (From east to west, the buildings are sandwiched between 178th and 179th Streets at 260 Audubon Avenue, 1370 St. Nicholas Avenue, 1365 St. Nicholas Avenue and 111 Wadsworth Avenue.) Three years later, the Bridge Apartments welcomed their first tenants under the state's Mitchell-Lama program for middle-income residents.
With 240 units apiece, the 32-story buildings were billed as ''New York's most fabulous big-family opportunity,'' where residents could ''live luxuriously'' in a three-bedroom apartment for $179 a month, utilities included. Laundry rooms and community rooms occupied the second floor, while the heating and water systems were placed below the ground-floor lobby.
But the initial wonderment dissipated. In 1967, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, visiting the complex, said that ''the choice of this location for these apartments, astride one of the most heavily traveled highways in New York City, shows a total disregard for environmental factors on the part of our city planners.'' Five years later, tenants staged a rent strike because of deteriorating services, said Jose Fortoul, the longtime president of the Bridge Apartments Tenant Association.
After a turbulent period in which a few owners were accused of embezzlement, the current owners, a group of real-estate investors, bought the buildings in 1987 and paid off the low-interest mortgages under the Mitchell-Lama program. But they decided that it made more business sense to keep the apartments as rentals, rather than converting them to cooperatives.

These days, most residents are working-class.

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/18/...to-sleep-as-trucks-roar-through-basement.html

 

[Raji Lowenthal]

sure.

Tracey Towers - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The buildings were created as a result of the Mitchell-Lama program, in addition, neighboring purchased air rights were also utilized in order to allow construction. Intended to be a luxury condominium,[4] the buildings were completed in 1972 and opened in 1974 as subsidized housing.

In 1960, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey transferred to the city the air rights of a three-acre area near the bridge. The city auctioned off those rights to the Kratter Corporation for a little over $1 million, as part of a novel method to build more middle-income housing.
Construction began in 1961 on what was one of the world's first aluminum-sheathed high-rises, with four concrete platforms providing the foundation. (From east to west, the buildings are sandwiched between 178th and 179th Streets at 260 Audubon Avenue, 1370 St. Nicholas Avenue, 1365 St. Nicholas Avenue and 111 Wadsworth Avenue.) Three years later, the Bridge Apartments welcomed their first tenants under the state's Mitchell-Lama program for middle-income residents.
With 240 units apiece, the 32-story buildings were billed as ''New York's most fabulous big-family opportunity,'' where residents could ''live luxuriously'' in a three-bedroom apartment for $179 a month, utilities included. Laundry rooms and community rooms occupied the second floor, while the heating and water systems were placed below the ground-floor lobby.
But the initial wonderment dissipated. In 1967, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, visiting the complex, said that ''the choice of this location for these apartments, astride one of the most heavily traveled highways in New York City, shows a total disregard for environmental factors on the part of our city planners.'' Five years later, tenants staged a rent strike because of deteriorating services, said Jose Fortoul, the longtime president of the Bridge Apartments Tenant Association.
After a turbulent period in which a few owners were accused of embezzlement, the current owners, a group of real-estate investors, bought the buildings in 1987 and paid off the low-interest mortgages under the Mitchell-Lama program. But they decided that it made more business sense to keep the apartments as rentals, rather than converting them to cooperatives.

These days, most residents are working-class.

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/18/...to-sleep-as-trucks-roar-through-basement.html

I'm not sure either of those fit the bill, neither has ever had wealthy tenants. Def no foreigners parking their money ever lived there. I had a chick in the wadsworth ave building in the early 90s and wasn't nothing luxury other than her sugar walls. I may have misunderstood your statement.

 

[alchemist iq]

No way luxury realtors/oweners gonna take an L on selling luxury-high end apartments to middle class ny'ers. Ain't happening especially in Manhattan.

 

[Raji Lowenthal]

No way luxury realtors/oweners gonna take an L on selling luxury-high end apartments to middle class ny'ers. Ain't happening especially in Manhattan.

They dont even want the middle/lower class who won the lottery for the set aside apartments to live there. One building in Harlem has a separate entrance for the lower income folks that they refer to as the poor door

 

[ninjahood]

I'm not sure either of those fit the bill, neither has ever had wealthy tenants. Def no foreigners parking their money ever lived there.

im talking about their original culmination, they then lose their "luxury appeal" and they soon get filled when common folk.

 

[ninjahood]

No way luxury realtors/oweners gonna take an L on selling luxury-high end apartments to middle class ny'ers. Ain't happening especially in Manhattan.

its already happened a few times...might wanna do your homework on Co-Op city in da Bronx for an example...when real estate goes thru slow periods owners change and da plan changes along with it.

 

[Raji Lowenthal]

im talking about their original culmination, they then lose their "luxury appeal" and they soon get filled when common folk.

Neither had luxury tenants though both opened under Mitchell Lama programs I mean that might be considered luxury if you grew up in the projects.

 

[alchemist iq]

its already happened a few times...might wanna do your homework on Co-Op city in da Bronx for an example.

I'm aware of the co-op city buildings, and if you consider that as luxury apartments, you might wanna do your homework.
But im speaking on luxury apartments in Manhattan. Ain't happening B.

 

[ninjahood]

Neither had luxury tenants though both opened under Mitchell Lama programs

that was just cover to green light da program..they certainly were made with da intention of creating "premium" housing..

problem is da developers usually screw up or switch half way thru when construction costs balloon, and delays hamper da plans, which usually da city steps in and takes it over as affordable housing.

 

[ninjahood]

I'm aware of the co-op city buildings, and if you consider that luxury apartments, you might wanna do your homework.
But im speaking on luxury apartments in Manhattan. Ain't happening B.

bridge buildings are in Washington heights (Manhattan) sir.

 

[alchemist iq]

bridge buildings are the in Washington heights (Manhattan) sir.

 

[Raji Lowenthal]

that was just cover to green light da program..they certainly were made with da intention of creating "premium" housing..

problem is da developers usually screw up or switch half way thru when construction costs balloon, and delays hamper da plans, which usually da city steps in and takes it over as affordable housing.

That may have been the intention but neither project weopened as or rented as luxury apartments.

 

[ninjahood]

That may have been the intention but neither project weopened as or rented as luxury apartments.

which is da point i made, eventually all those glassy high rises will meet da same fate especially since NYC contemplating passing a Pierre de terre tax on people with second homes, which is gonna take a NICE bite outta this segment as well.

 

[Raji Lowenthal]

which is da point i made, eventually all those glassy high rises will meet da same fate especially since NYC contemplating passing a Pierre de terre tax on people with second homes, which is gonna take a NICE bite outta this segment as well.

But they've already opened as and are rented to wealthy people. You can't compare mid grade buildings with working class renters to them. 111 Wasworth may have been luxury to a Dominican fresh from DR or country bumpkin who just got off at PA from Alabama who never saw nothing. Joints you mentioning were middle class from the first lease.